Real science is never settled, and anyone who has certainty on such things is not qualified to discuss it.
Scientific fraud is everywhere, whether it is at Stanford or formerly respectable* journals like The Lancet or Nature Magazine or JAMA. Science has become a dirty business populated by ferrets, all about follow the money. The climate change hysteria is the worst of them all, because it involves $trillions along with a horders of grifters at every level from “the science” to the subsidized energy sources—green is the new brown.
Coldest June in 40 years all over, a mellow July so wonderfully temperate that I cannot remember a nicer one in 30 years here in the SF Bay area, cold and chilly here in August last night, last year’s record snows, etc. Mountains with a superbloom, life abounding and nature just doing what it has always done—cycling between extremes. There is no “average” year any more than a woman can be 80% pregnant.
Weren’t we all supposed to be dead by now? The doom and gloom “planet dying” propaganda psyops religion is getting old as it teeters against reality, and thus becoming strident and downright vicious to anyone questioning the
dogma science, blinding its believers to any form of reason, as anti-science as they come, no matter how educated.
If its not fake scientific papers, it’s propaganda and alarmism beyond the pale, a massive psyops brainwashing operation. You are expected to live a shitty degraded life based on expensive energy while suffering from extreme anxiety thinking the planet is dying. Meanwhile, the vast environmental devastation of “green” energy (plain to see in too many areas now) proceeds apace , with trillions wasted on stupid technology when the entire problem (if it even exists!) has a known solution: SMRs (small modular nuclear reactors). Twenty years from now, the extreme stupidity and masssive opportunity cost and negative ROI of following this path of idiocy path will be evident to all. The suffering it will bring will be immense and widespread.
The more money involved, the more false and duplicitous the “science”. You can count on that every bit as much as death and taxes. This is all about power and money, and they”ll stop at nothing to ruin the lives of you and your children, while profiting handsomely by “pull” and graft and government subsidies.
John Clauser, a Nobel prize-winning physicist, is apparently the latest target of a cancel campaign. According to a group called the CO2 Coalition, Clauser was scheduled to speak to a group at the International Monetary Fund on climate change when critics spotted a serious problem: he does not support the accepted view on the subject. The response was all-too-familiar (even if less expected by Nobel laureates): Clauser had to be barred from sharing his scientific views or being heard by others at the IMF.
During the pandemic, dissenting scientists were regularly banned or canceled for questioning the efficacy of masks, suggesting a lab theory on the origins of Covid, raising natural immunity defenses, and other viewpoints. They have been largely vindicated. Yet, censorship remains commonplace even at universities and organizations like the IMF.
Clauser was reportedly guilty of questioning the reliability of the predictions of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. So an organization of economists based on objective data and research decided to bar others from hearing countervailing views.
Clauser has earned the ire of climate change advocates by calling the underlying scientific claims “dangerous misinformation” based on shoddy research. I can certainly see why that is not welcomed. However, rather than simply refute his views with their own data, these groups want to prevent others from hearing him.
The IMF has said little in the aftermath of the indefinite postponement. Why should it? The silence is precisely what it sought to achieve.
WIND: this the state of climate “science” today: an orthodoxy/religion that has no tolerance for scientific inquiry.
Norway’s government commits a no-no by letting statisticians pose the most inconvenient question.
If this column has ever plagiarized itself, it’s by repeating the phrase “evidence of warming is not evidence of what causes warming.” A paper published by the Norwegian government’s statistical agency, written by two of its retired experts, touching on this very subject has called forth so many shrieked accusations of climate apostasy that you know it must be interesting.
The authors ask a simple question: Are computerized climate simulations a sufficient basis for attributing observed warming to human CO2? After all, the Earth’s climate has been subject to substantial warming and cooling trends for millennia that remain unexplained and can’t be attributed to fossil fuels. As statisticians, their conclusion: “With the current level of knowledge, it seems impossible to determine how much of the temperature increase is due to emissions of CO2.”
...Before 2015, as I’ve previously noted, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that 2005 and 2010 were equally warm to the second decimal. By 2015, the record was changed to claim 2010 was warmer than 2005. Such adjustments are common and the Norwegians point out the obvious: “It is impossible to evaluate the validity of such administrative changes for an outside user of these records.” In 2017, independent researcher Marcia Wyatt showed 16 such revisions had been made to the long-past temperature record in just the previous three years... a future climate scandal is lurking, it’s here. A spirit of disingenuousness already pervades NOAA’s use of these numbers to make “hottest year” and “hottest month” proclamations, ignoring its own stated margin of error, which is often a large multiple of the claimed temperature difference from one period to the next.
it helps prop up the green corporate welfare that has become the primary substitute for climate action as well as the primary incentive for anyone to spend working hours participating in these now-tired activities.
... Warming will be worse, his paper predicts, for an ironic reason: Our success in reducing particulate exhaust from vehicles and power sources has reduced the atmospheric aerosols that slow warming. Mr. Hansen champions nuclear power, which remains anathema to many greens, and research into using aerosols artificially to cool the planet, even more anathema, since it doesn’t involve a giant convulsion of green socialism. You can bet most of his argument will be ignored except the part about faster warming, since it can be used to bludgeon any deniers who might be handy.
WIND: climate change models (and ALL models) are for persuasion—in other words, propaganda. At their very best they might be called junk science except that models are not science at all, but closer to a kind of psychiatric test of “researchers” who impose their own goals and biases and especially ignorance of what they don’t know yet—witness new factors previously unconsidered being found each year—and then call it “science” to gain more funding. Moreover, the worst-case scenarios according to the
propaganda model is then held up to extort more money for more “study”. Climates “science” is the most dismal science that exists, trotting in just behind the social “sciences”. Indeed, climate science is the new social science.
Models that do not work (none do for long, having no predictive power) are thrown out and ignored as if they never existed. Since they are all thrown out eventually, a steady stream of new ones is required. But the first step is to revise the data and then call that an “adjustment”.
Here's The Climate Dissent You're Not Hearing About Because It's Muffled By Society's Top Institutions
...Meanwhile, a top academic journal retracted published research doubting a climate emergency after negative coverage in legacy media. The move was decried by another prominent climate dissenter, Roger Pielke Jr., as “one of the most egregious failures of scientific publishing that I have seen” – criticism muffled because the academic says he has been blocked on Twitter (now X) by reporters on the climate beat...
WIND: climate “science” is the most corrupt area of “research” today, well, after medical “science”. Follow the money—that’s all there is to the whole house of cards.
Many excavation projects in America's Silver State require the draining of critical groundwater to extract the minerals out of the ground.
Mr. Hadder called the process "de-watering," and it has been known to affect everything from nearby springs to residential wells, plants, watersheds, and wildlife. He compared it to digging a hole in the sand at the beach: When the water fills in at the bottom, it has to be removed in order to continue digging. This is a common problem in pit mining, a standard method for extraction in Nevada.
This artificial draining of underground aquifers or "de-watering" can have a long-range impact on existing resources that could last for decades, even centuries.
...“That de-watering will affect all groundwater attached to it: springs, surface water ... That water table will take a hundred years or more to recover. It’s not a short-term effect. Some of those effects could be permanent,"...
WIND: 'green' is the new brown—drying up creeks and springs with the result of killing-off a vast web of wildlife that depends on scarce water resources (not to mention people)—for hundreds of years. A bunch of f*cking sociopaths “saving” the earth (a mass delusion) by destroying it. The whole 'green' hysteria will result in environmental destruction on a scale so vast it’s hard to comprehend. You might live in city, but I travel and see the ugliness—already too many areas have been destroyed and now it’s going to be millions of acres.
2023-07-29, By Nathan Worcester.
Nobel Prize-winning physicist John Clauser isn't afraid to go against the flow.
In a July 26 interview with The Epoch Times, Mr. Clauser explained that he carried out his early research on quantum mechanics against opposition from some in the field.
As a young man, he conducted the first experiment to demonstrate the reality of nonlocal quantum entanglement—the linkage between multiple particles across any physical distance. Many years later, that groundbreaking work earned him one-third of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics.
Today, the 80-year-old scientist is up against another establishment... He's violating a taboo that has slowly but surely become one of the biggest in science and politics. "I am, I guess, what you would call a 'climate change denialist,'" Mr. Clauser told The Epoch Times.
...He also described the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as "one of the worst sources of dangerous misinformation."
...The physicist said he believes that objective science on climate has been sacrificed to politics. The preeminence of politics is all the worse, he said, because so much money has already gone to climate initiatives. "We're talking about trillions of dollars," he said, adding that powerful people don't want to hear that they've made "trillion-dollar mistakes."
"We are totally awash in pseudoscience," he told The Epoch Times.
WIND: follow the money will rarely if ever ever mislead you. It’s right even when there is no obvious reason for it.
If you have to talk about taboos and opposition and “objective” in science, you know something is very Wrong with that thing claimed to be science.
Burn baby burn?
BTW, where is the big news that California is burning up? Well, it isn’t news when everything is going great, which it is this year. Best air in years. Where are the headlines, the talking heads warning us that if this keeps up, life will just keep getting better and better?
No... the “news” is telling you that the planet is burning up this year, an absurdity that a few simple facts can refute.
- The percentage of the US to reach 100° F this year is currently at a record low 18%, down from 79% in 1936
- The five hottest July 25ths in the US were 1934, 1901, 1940, 1936 and 1952. US summers are much cooler now than they were prior to 1960.
- The temperatures in 1936 were much worse than this year. The heatwave of 2023 isn't in the ballpark of past US heatwaves like 1936. Your red hot map is uninformative propaganda.
There's no climate emergency. And the alarmist messaging pushed by global elites is purely political. That's what 1,609 scientists and informed professionals stated when they signed the Global Climate Intelligence Group's "World Climate Declaration."
...The declaration's signatories include Nobel laureates, theoretical physicists, meteorologists, professors, and environmental scientists worldwide. And when a select few were asked by The Epoch Times why they signed the declaration stating that the "climate emergency" is a farce, they all stated a variation of "because it's true."
WIND: sums it up.
In 1999, American climatologist Michael Mann first published a “hockey stick graph” that purported to show an unprecedented spike in global temperature over the past century... In 2015, author Mark Steyn published “A Disgrace to the Profession,” which compiled the views of more than 100 world-class scientists who were skeptical of Mann’s research methods and the degree of public hysteria generated by his predictions.
...Our privileged “warmerati” can afford to follow a fashionable green lifestyle, but for legions of ordinary people, access to fossil fuels is a matter of life or death. Insisting people in struggling economies achieve “net zero” will only result in their further decline.
...People’s views about “climate change” depend almost entirely on an acquired ideological framework. Those who choose to regard the elimination of human impact on nature as an end in itself would sacrifice the well-being of billions to achieve their Utopian vision.
...Bjorn Lomborg, author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist” and former director of the Danish government’s Environmental Assessment Institute, recently asserted that “the proffered solutions to cut CO2 are both incredibly expensive and terribly ineffective.”
WIND: the only thing the current “green” policies can possibly do is to create misery and death. The title above should read “... Unless Large Scale Deployment of Nuclear is Given Wartime Priority”.
Humanity can easily adapt and indeed benefit from the warming, whatever the cause. And if it really exists as human-caused, a totally unproven hypothesis. In either case, large-scale use of nuclear power is the only viable solution, with children and idiots continuing to believe in the Easter Bunny of unreliable hyper-expensive land-destroying renewable power.
2023-07-31, by Bjorn Lomborg
It turns out the percentage of the globe that burns each year has been declining since 2001.
One of the most common tropes in our increasingly alarmist climate debate is that global warming has set the world on fire. But it hasn’t. For more than two decades, satellites have recorded fires across the planet’s surface. The data are unequivocal: Since the early 2000s, when 3% of the world’s land caught fire, the area burned annually has trended downward.
In 2022, the last year for which there are complete data, the world hit a new record-low of 2.2% burned area. Yet you’ll struggle to find that reported anywhere.
Instead, the media acts as if the world is ablaze. In late 2021, the New York Times employed more than 40 staff on a project called “Postcards from a World on Fire,” headed by a photorealistic animation of the world in flames. Its explicit goal was to convince readers of the climate crisis’ immediacy through a series of stories of climate-change-related devastation across the world, including the 2019-20 wildfires in Australia.
Surveys repeatedly show that most voters are unwilling to support the very expensive climate policies activists and green politicians have proposed. Overheated headlines about climate Armageddon are an attempt to scare us into supporting them anyway, at the cost of sensible discussion and debate.
WIND: our children will pay dearly for this destructive policy stupidity.
"Extreme," "hellish," "broiling," and "deadly." These words, and then some, are being used by politicians and media to describe the summer temperatures sweeping the nation.
"The hottest month just ended. We witnessed scorching heat, extreme weather events, wildfires, and severe health consequences," said Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the director-general of the World Health Organization (WHO), on X, formerly known as Twitter.
"It's a stark reminder of the urgent need for collective action to address climate change. Let's use this alarming milestone to fuel our determination for bold climate action. Together, we can turn up the heat on sustainable solutions and create a cooler, more resilient world for generations to come."
Myron Ebell, director and senior fellow at the Center for Energy & Environment, said that while June and July were hot in many locations, other places experienced below-average temperatures. Los Angeles for example, experienced its 10th coolest June on record, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
... "It is hot in some places and not in others," Mr. Christy said. “Globally, the temperatures continue to creep upward—but note that the 19th century was one of the coldest in the last 10,000 years, so we would expect Mother Nature to bounce back from that, aided a bit by the extra greenhouse gasses whose rise fundamentally indicates more and more people are experiencing longer and better lives.
...Worldwide, however, cold weather continues to kill more people every year than heat. Cold is responsible for 4.6 million excess deaths around the globe each year, according to the Breakthrough Institute. Heat is responsible for 500,000.
...Mr. Ebell was less diplomatic, "[Climate alarmists] want to scare us into adopting expensive, pointless policies."
...Mr. Ebell said, since 2000, the world has spent approximately $6.5 trillion on transitioning away from oil, coal, and gas. The result is the world's reliance on fossil fuels has reduced from 82 percent to 81 percent.
Mr. Ebell said he believes climate change is real, but not in the way the Biden administration means it.
"They mean we're moving into this new, scary world of weather and climate crisis. But that's all fantasy," he said.
"The weather is changing all the time, and human beings have something to do with it. We're in a warming period—it's warmed up a little bit—but that's been mostly beneficial.”
WIND: what a global clusterfuck. The climate change religion has reached peak hoax, let’s hope.
But wait, it's gets even stupider. This one hits home for me, as I have seen vast tracks of land that used to flower and bloom and be beautiful turned into industrial parks aka "solar farms" and wind farms".
Stupidity is increasingly state-sanctioned. Since 2000, the Scottish government has felled around 1,700 trees on a daily basis, all to make way for “green” initiatives. Leave it to the government and their leftist abettors to harp on the “destruction of the environment” then chop down literal trees to create barren wastelands—all to make room for obtrusive, industrial, inanimate behemoths that obliterate all sorts of animal populations, and create massive amounts of environmental pollution (in production, maintenance, and disposal).
They squeal about “carbon pollution” then level green (literally and figuratively) CO2 consumers, and replace once-thriving forests with technological, ecological, and fiscal abominations. Every day, they “do something stupider” than the day before. Low-brow Greenies are the quintessential “useful idiots” and it certainly shows.
WIND: green is the new brown. Shirt.
Two prominent climate scientists have taken on new rules from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on cutting carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in electricity generation, arguing in testimony that the regulations “will be disastrous for the country, for no scientifically justifiable reason.”
WIND: indeed, it is a hoax in terms of doing anything useful. It’s all follow the money.
2023-08-13. Emphasis added.
Paul Krugman hypes renewables in the New York Times, but the Iron Law of Power Density won’t be repealed
...The shape and size of our energy systems are not being determined by political beliefs about climate change. Instead, those systems are ruled by the Iron Law of Power Density which says: the lower the power density, the greater the resource intensity. This can easily be seen in the graphic above.
The mineral intensity of offshore wind, including huge amounts of copper and zinc, is shocking: roughly 15,400 kilograms per megawatt of generation capacity. That is roughly 13 times more than the amount needed for natural gas-fired generation (1,148 kg) and six times more than what’s needed for a coal plant (2,479 kg).
The Iron Law of Power Density explains why Siemens Energy just reported a $2.4 billion loss on its wind business in the latest quarter. It explains why offshore wind projects here in the U.S. and in Europe, are being canceled left and right. It also explains why, all around the world, rural communities and landowners are fighting back against the landscape-blighting encroachment of massive wind and solar projects.
...Power density is the measure of energy flow that can be harnessed from a given area, volume, or mass. Power density is a measure of how many watts we can get per square meter, liter, or kilogram from a given source. This article focuses on areal power density. Proving why low-power-density sources are the wrong choice for modern society takes only a modicum of effort.
...If your power plant requires 10 times more material inputs than other forms of power generation, it’s readily apparent why Siemens and other companies in the wind business are getting blown away...
...The other key facet of the Iron Law of Power Density, of course, is land use. The only way to substantially increase the production of wind and solar energy is by seizing more and more land, (or ocean) so they can be covered with more and more steel, concrete, copper, and silicon....
WIND: the environmental destruction from 'green' energy that I see when traveling is outrageous and irreversible in even my children’s children’s lifetimes, an abomination. We are destroying vast tracts of land for very short-lived projects that line the pockets of wealthy and connected exploiters with political connections, and endangering our future with the vast sums that offer no hope for the future via the asinine projects they fund.
2023-09-09. Emphasis added.
Nobel Prize laureate John Clauser has recently been in the spotlight for challenging prevailing climate models, which he says have ignored a key variable.
'The Missing Piece'
Mr. Clauser said he believes he has identified a significant oversight in prevailing climate models.
"I believe I have the missing piece of the puzzle that has been left out in virtually all of these computer programs," he stated. "And that is the effect of clouds."
WIND: the very definition of science is questioning assertions. Even if the assertion here is incorrect, it is a scientific approach, the antithesis of the propaganda spewn out by the media.
If clouds indeed have 100X to 200X the effect of CO2, the whole thing is a ridiculous joke.
Models are not science, they are for persuasion, they are propaganda. And that is about all the climate change fanatics have, all of which have all failed to predict.